| Literature DB >> 34072485 |
Cesare Pacioni1, Francesca Mercati2, Andrea Catorci3, Andrea Brusaferro4, Diederik Strubbe1, Paola Scocco3.
Abstract
The analysis of body shape variability has always been a central element in biology. More recently, geometric morphometry has developed as a new field in shape analysis, with the aim to study body morphological variations and the identification of their causes. In wildlife management, geometric morphometry could be a useful tool to compare the anatomical structures of an organism and quantify its geometric information in order to relate them to environmental factors, thus identifying the causes and effects of the variation and acting management and/or conservation plans. The aim of our study is to evaluate the relationship between roe deer mandible shape and trophic resources available during autumn and winter. We applied a geometric morphometry approach consisting of a Relative Warp analysis of landmark data in 26 roe deer fawn mandibles. Each sample was assigned to an age category and to an environmental category based on the territory carrying capacity. The mandible shape of samples under 8 months of age is likely influenced by the availability of trophic resources. Our findings suggest that the mandible shape is a reliable instrument to assess resource availability. Geometric morphometry could thus represent an additional tool for roe deer management.Entities:
Keywords: geometric morphometry; mandible; roe deer; shape analysis; trophic resources; wildlife management
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072485 PMCID: PMC8228368 DOI: 10.3390/ani11061611
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 2.752
Figure 1(On the top): the consensus configuration for the dorsal side of the mandible (aged 0–8 months). (On the bottom): the caption of the dorsal side of the mandible (aged 0–8 months) from Geogebra. Landmarks are shown in red dots, while semi-landmarks are shown in yellow. Semi-landmarks were placed on the anatomical part encountered by the axis perpendicular to the midpoint of the segment connecting two landmarks.
Figure 2(On the top): view of the dorsal side of the mandible. (On the bottom): view of the lateral side of the mandible.
Figure 3(On the top): the consensus configuration for the lateral side of the mandible (aged 0–8 months). (On the bottom): the caption of the lateral side of the mandible (aged 0–8 months) from Geogebra. Landmarks are shown in red dots, while semi-landmarks are shown in yellow. Semi-landmarks were placed on the anatomical part encountered by the axis perpendicular to the midpoint of the segment connecting two landmarks.
ANOVA One-way results from dorsal side data.
| Dorsal Side | 0–11 Months Old (N = 26) | 8–11 Months Old (N = 14) | 0–8 Months Old (N = 12) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS | df | MS | F |
| SS | df | MS | F |
| SS | df | MS | F |
| ||
| RW1 | BG | 0.001 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.588 | 0.563 | 0.001 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.530 | 0.603 | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 5.737 | 0.025 |
| WG | 0.012 | 23 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.012 | 25 | 0.006 | 13 | 0.004 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW2 | BG | 0.001 | 2 | 0.000 | 1.720 | 0.201 | 0.001 | 2 | 0.001 | 3.627 | 0.062 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.216 | 0.810 |
| WG | 0.004 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.004 | 25 | 0.003 | 13 | 0.001 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW3 | BG | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.336 | 0.718 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.597 | 0.567 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.460 | 0.646 |
| WG | 0.003 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.004 | 25 | 0.001 | 13 | 0.002 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW4 | BG | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.583 | 0.566 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.469 | 0.637 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.207 | 0.816 |
| WG | 0.001 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.001 | 25 | 0.001 | 13 | 0.001 | 11 | ||||||||||
N = number of samples; SS = sum of squares; df = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square; RW = relative warp; BG = between groups; WG = within groups.
ANOVA One-way results from lateral side data.
| Lateral Side | 0–11 Months Old (N = 26) | 8–11 Months Old (N = 14) | 0–8 Months Old (N = 12) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS | df | MS | F | Sig. | SS | df | MS | F | Sig. | SS | df | MS | F | Sig. | ||
| RW1 | BG | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 0.895 | 0.121 | 0.002 | 2 | 0.001 | 1.506 | 0.264 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 691 | 0.526 |
| WG | 0.011 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 11 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.013 | 25 | 0.011 | 13 | 0.002 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW2 | BG | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 2.321 | 0.611 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.853 | 0.452 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.120 | 0.889 |
| WG | 0.005 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.005 | 25 | 0.003 | 13 | 0.003 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW3 | BG | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.503 | 0.434 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 1.112 | 0.363 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 0.867 |
| WG | 0.003 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.003 | 25 | 0.001 | 13 | 0.001 | 11 | ||||||||||
| RW4 | BG | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.910 | 0.417 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.241 | 0.790 | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.639 | 0.550 |
| WG | 0.002 | 23 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 11 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 9 | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total | 0.002 | 25 | 0.001 | 13 | 0.001 | 11 | ||||||||||
N = number of samples; SS = sum of squares; df = degrees of freedom; MS = mean square; RW = relative warp; BG = between groups; WG = within groups.
Tukey HSD results from dorsal side data from samples pertaining to animals aged 0–8 months.
| COD | N | Subset for Alpha = 0.05 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | ||
| 3 | 3 | −0.0108 | |
| 2 | 4 | 0.0154 | 0.0154 |
| 1 | 5 | 0.0209 | |
|
| 0.053 | 0.836 | |
COD 1, 2, 3 indicates the environmental category; N = number of samples.
Figure 4RWs (axis 1 and 2) of mandibles pertaining to subjects aged 0–8 months. Deformation grids evidence the sample shape modification along RW1 with respect to the consensus grid linked to the environmental category of the samples. COD 1, 2, 3 indicates the environmental category.